See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/344697566

Disability and Engineering: A Case of "Othering"?

Conference Paper · June 2020

DOI: 10.18260/1-2--34467

CITATIONS READS
0 520

4 authors:

Stephanie Lezotte Harriet Hartman

Rowan University Rowan University
23 PUBLICATIONS 98 CITATIONS 72 PUBLICATIONS 728 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Stephanie Farrell Tiago Forin

Rowan University 30 PUBLICATIONS 174 CITATIONS
132 PUBLICATIONS 364 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Stephanie Lezotte on 02 December 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Paper ID #29476

Disability and Engineering: A Case of ”Othering”?

Stephanie Lezotte, Rowan University
Stephanie recently received her Ph.D. in education, postsecondary and higher education. Using organiza-
tional theories, she is interested in systems and structures that contribute to the oppression and symbolic
violence of minoritized and underrepresented students. Her dissertation focused on institutional messages
about diversity and inclusion at three engineering schools in the U.S.
Prof. Harriet Hartman, Rowan University
Professor of Sociology, Chair of Sociology and Anthropology Department, Rowan University. Co-p.i. of
RED NSF RevED project at Rowan University.

Dr. Stephanie Farrell, Rowan University

Dr. Stephanie Farrell is Interim Dean and Professor and Founding Chair of Experiential Engineering
Education Department in the Henry M. Rowan College at Rowan University (USA). She is the immediate
past president of ASEE. Dr. Farrell has contributed to engineering education through her work in inductive
pedagogy, spatial skills, and inclusion and diversity. She has been honored by the American Society of
Engineering Education with several teaching awards such as the 2004 National Outstanding Teaching
Medal and the 2005 Quinn Award for experiential learning, and she was 2014-15 Fulbright Scholar in
Engineering Education at Dublin Institute of Technology (Ireland).
Mr. Tiago R Forin, Rowan University

Tiago Forin is a PhD candidate in Engineering Education and researcher at Purdue University affiliated
with XRoads Research Group, the Global Engineering Program and the Office of Institutional Research,
Assessment, and Effectiveness. He received a Bachelor’s degree in civil engineering from Florida State
University and a Master’s degree in environmental engineering from Purdue University.

c American Society for Engineering Education, 2020

Disability and Engineering: A Case of “Othering”?
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (2009) defines disability as (A) “a physical or
mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual,
(B) a record of such impairment; or (C) being regarded as having such an impairment.” For
Americans with disabilities, the right to equal opportunity is protected by law. Under ADA,
hiring discrimination is prohibited and reasonable accommodations must be made for employees
with disabilities. Particularly relevant to colleges and universities, The Rehabilitation Act of
1973 prohibits institutions that receive federal funding from discriminating against individuals
with disabilities, as well as from excluding such individuals from participating in or benefitting
from federally-funded programs and activities. American institutions of higher education
receiving federal funds are, like workplaces, required to make reasonable accommodations for
students with disabilities.

Because disability can be visible or invisible—ranging from hearing impairment to dyslexia to

autism—appropriate accommodations vary and may include extra exam time, note-taking
assistance, adaptive technology, assistance with learning/studying techniques, or different exam
formats [1]. Unlike K-12 education, accommodations during college study are contingent upon
student self-advocacy; in order to receive an accommodation, students must file disability
documentation with their school’s disability services center and request an accommodation. The
request may or may not be approved. Further, university officials cannot legally disclose a
student’s personal health information to faculty, so it is up to the student to inform their
professors about their condition and approved accommodations [2].

Despite recent postsecondary enrollment gains for students with disabilities, barriers to success
persist, particularly for students in STEM [3]. These barriers stem from both institutional factors
such as lack of faculty awareness of disabilities and disability services, inaccessible facilities,
and inadequate disabilities services and personal factors such as lack of student disclosure,
stigma, feelings of “otherness,” and feelings of inadequacy [4] [5] [6] [7]. Such barriers inhibit
students with disabilities from entering into STEM career fields, negatively affecting the labor
force. The National Science Foundation [8] reported that scientists and engineers with
disabilities work full-time at rates lower than their counterparts without disabilities, and that 11%
of individuals under 75 have a disability. More research must be done to understand the
challenges students with disabilities face in STEM college programs.

Certain types of disabilities and disorders are more common among STEM students. For
example, students with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) are more likely to gravitate toward
STEM fields than the general population and students with other types of disabilities [9].
Because autistic traits are higher in males than females, this may contribute to the STEM gender
gap [10]. Students with ASD contribute to engineering work in meaningful ways, as they bring
diverse perspectives and thought processes, the ability to think pictorially, and enhanced duration
of focus [11] [12]. Therefore, students with disabilities require an inclusive and safe environment
that nurtures their abilities and reinforces their value and contributions [9] [12]. This is also true
of students with a range of visible and nonvisible disabilities, collectively referred to as
neurodiverse students [13].

Intersection between disability status and other “other” statuses compounds experiences. Little
research has explored multiple “other” statuses, especially with regard to students with
disabilities. “A major critique of the minority group, social construction, and disability studies
paradigms...is that they have failed to fully consider and problematize intersectionality of other
social identities” ([14] p#; see also [15]). Sommo and Chaskes [16] call for an understanding of
the complexity of diversity within communities of disability, owing to the variations of
disabilities that are encompassed, as well as the difficulty in account for interactions with other
variables “within the matrix of oppression” (pp 52-3); “it can be difficult to delineate the point at
which the physically imposed limitation ends and the socially constructed oppression begins…”
(p. 49).

In this article we focus on undergraduate engineering students, comparing those with and without
a self-disclosed disability. We begin with a review of research that has been done on engineering
students with disabilities, describe the current study and present its results, and discuss
suggestions for improvement.

Literature review

Engineering Students with Disabilities: Because disability is not always visible and because
college students must self-identify as disabled, it is difficult to know the true number of
engineering students with disabilities. This section will review literature about students with
disabilities’ commitment to the engineering major and career, their extracurricular engagement,
their feelings of self-efficacy in engineering, and their perceptions of “otherness.”

Commitment to the engineering major and career: According to the National Science Foundation
[8], students with disabilities enroll in undergraduate science and engineering fields at similar
rates to their non-disabled counterparts. Fewer students with disabilities, however, enroll in
STEM graduate programs [17] [18]. Nuances can be seen among STEM enrollment trends of
students with disabilities. For example, students with Autism Spectrum Disorder are more likely
to persist in a 2-year community college and twice as likely to transfer into 4-year college STEM
programs than their peers [19]. Reasons that students with disabilities are deterred from choosing
engineering as a major include a lack of engineering role models who have disabilities, parent
and teacher misconceptions about disabled students’ ability to succeed, lack of school and career
counseling, structural/physical barriers, and lower participation rates in STEM-related courses
and activities [5] [18]. Moon et al. [18] also point to a lack of training for STEM elementary
school teachers in inclusive pedagogy and accommodations for students with disabilities, which
may contribute to a chilly climate, which contributes to disinterest in the field and subsequent
underrepresentation of students with disabilities in middle school STEM education.

Despite entering science and engineering fields at the same rate as their non-disabled peers, a gap
exists in college degree attainment. According to 2015 data, 33% of the U.S. population has a
Bachelor’s degree or more, compared to only 14% of individuals with disabilities [20]. Hawley,
Cardoso, and McMahon [17] attribute attrition of STEM students with disabilities to
programmatic, economic, psychological, and attitudinal barriers. For example, students with
physical disabilities often face architectural barriers such as laboratory table height, inaccessible
equipment or instrument, and lack of elevators to reach facilities [17]. A non-inclusive school
culture and negative faculty attitudes toward disabilities greatly impact students’ commitment to
the engineering major and career. Efforts to increase retention of students with disabilities and
other marginalized students include curriculum redesign and greater diversity when hiring
faculty [21] [22].

Self-Efficacy: Self-efficacy, the belief in one’s ability to succeed, has been found to be a critical
skill for students with disabilities. STEM fields, especially, attract a higher concentration of
students with autism spectrum disorder than any other disability category [23]. Research shows
that students with disabilities have a malleable sense of self-efficacy, and that a positive sense of
self-efficacy influences their academic success and persistence in STEM classes [24]. Jenson et
al. [24] found that STEM college students with disabilities gained self-efficacy when they
engaged in applied learning and team projects, received peer feedback, saw other students with
disabilities succeed, and had supportive faculty/classmates.

Self-efficacy is tied to self-advocacy and self-determination. Even after students demonstrate

self-advocacy by disclosing their diagnosed disability to the college, they often need to come to a
self-understanding that involves recognition of what other supports or strategies they need to
employ in order to succeed. Denhart’s [25] qualitative study of eleven students with disabilities
revealed that ten of those students felt self-understanding was a key strategy to overcome barriers
they faced in higher education. For those students, self-understanding meant recognizing how
one learns, understanding that differences could be beneficial, and knowing how to get what they
needed out of the system.

Students with disabilities may also underestimate or overestimate their self-efficacy and
capabilities [26]. Underestimation of capability contributes to a lack of interest in STEM fields
due to lack of confidence. Overestimation of capability may dissuade some students with
disabilities from seeking support or requesting accommodations. Lee [27] found that students
with disabilities are less likely to ask for accommodations in college STEM programs, which
may be related to an overestimation of self-efficacy.

Extracurricular engagement: Astin’s [28] seminal theory of student involvement suggests that
students are more likely to persist in college if they engage in extracurricular activities. In
addition, the theory holds that the more involved a student is, the greater the students’ learning
outcomes and personal development. Empirical research has since supported his theory [29] [30].
However, students with invisible disabilities such as emotional and behavioral disorders as well
as physical disabilities may be less likely or able to engage in campus activities or organizations
[31].

Extracurricular activities are particularly beneficial for advancing interest in STEM, as they offer
hands-on experiential learning and discovery, exploration of career options, networking
opportunities with other students interested in STEM, and familiarity with cutting-edge research
and technology [5]. Wilson et al. [32] found that participation in extracurricular activities has a
significant correlation to engineering students’ self-efficacy. Dunn, et al. [5] highlight barriers
that students with disabilities face in pursuing STEM majors and careers. Their case study of a
high school student with a learning disability suggests that participation in extracurricular
activities in middle school (such as a science summer camp) increased interest in higher-level
STEM courses in high school.
For students whose disability identity intersects with another underrepresented minority group,
educational consequences can be even more severe. Black, Hispanic/Latinx, and Native
American students, who are overrepresented in special education, are less frequently exposed to
higher-level STEM material required for college [17] [18] [33] [34]. Gottfried, Bozick, Rose,
and Moore [35] found that high school students with disabilities took less advanced science and
mathematics courses. However, their nationally representative sample consisted of an
overrepresentation of Black and Hispanic/Latinx students. Because identity is multidimensional
and intersectional, Walden et al. [36] suggest the use of the phrase “underrepresented minority”
is not only exclusionary, but will soon be factually inaccurate as U.S. demographics shift; they
instead recommend the term “excluded identities.”

Perceptions of “otherness”: Students with disabilities in general report feeling “different” from
their counterparts, possibly in part to being misunderstood or misrepresented by others [37].
While providing necessary accommodations can increase disabled students’ success, the
accommodation process itself can be a constant reminder to students that they are ‘different’ than
other students. Researchers have also experimented with informal accommodations, which may
include given a quiz at the end of a class so that a student who has a documented disability may
have extra minutes, rather than requiring the student to take the quiz at the disability services unit
in order to receive extra time [2]. This approach allows the student to be part of a more inclusive
environment rather than being segregated from peers due to being ‘different.’ At the same time,
Spingola [38] suggests that most literature approaches disability from a deficit perspective in
trying to ‘fix’ engineering students with disabilities rather than perceiving them as valued and
equal.

STEM students who are disabled face additional stigma of being “othered.” Use of equipment,
chemicals, instruments, or electronics can sometimes prove challenging to students with
disabilities and therefore additional supports and accommodations may be necessary to facilitate
their safety and academic success. Barga [39] reports that one professor labeled a student with a
learning disability a “dangerous engineer,” and sought to have her removed from class and the
engineering department. Our implicit biases also play a part in ‘othering’ college students with
disabilities. Rao and Gartin [7] found that engineering and law professors are significantly less
willing to provide accommodations to students with disabilities than professors in other
disciplines. Even when documented and approved, faculty may perceive students who request
accommodations as lazy, deceptive, or avoiding work [17]. Love et al. [40] found that STEM
faculty had difficulty defining and understanding STEM students with invisible disabilities.
Empathy, a trait that is less frequent in those with high analytical abilities like engineers, may
play a role in ‘othering’ STEM students with disabilities and reluctance to provide
accommodations [41] [42].

Disability at the current university

The setting of our research is a growing research university located in the mid-Atlantic region. It
has seen explosive growth since 2012 when it opened an MD-granting medical school and a year
later acquired a second DO-granting medical school. The university is named after its benefactor,
who provided a $100 million gift to strengthen the region’s engineering capacity. This gift
spurred the creation of a College of Engineering that has six academic departments:
Civil/Environmental Engineering (CEE), Chemical Engineering, Biomedical Engineering,
Mechanical Engineering, Electrical/Computer Engineering, and Experiential Engineering
Education. In 2016, the Civil/Environmental Engineering department received a five-year
National Science Foundation grant, one of twenty-one in the country. The program aims to
develop students’ professional identity through well-functioning departments that embark on
cultural, curricular, and institutional change. The program places an emphasis on inclusion of
underrepresented groups and increasing STEM diversity within academia and the workforce.
CEE is thus in its first year of intensive efforts to increase the number of underserved students in
the program, including women and underrepresented minorities, and promote inclusivity through
its curriculum, pedagogy, and climate. While most measures of diversity focus on
underrepresented racial/ethnic minorities and women, the CEE department was interested in
addressing both visible and non-visible elements of diversity. Most students with disabilities fit
into both of these groups.

Approximately 10% of engineering students report having a disability and 41% of those students
use the disability resources office at the university. To receive accommodations within courses,
housing, and dining services, students submit a one-page Disability Registration Form and
medical documentation of the disability to the Disability Resources office. If approved, the
student is given an acceptance letter to provide to their professors each semester. Other services
provided by the Disabilities Resources office include academic coaching and tutoring, an
academic honor society for high-achieving students with disabilities, introduction to Universal
Design, transition resources, and faculty mentors.

In the following we present results from a survey conducted in the university’s College of
Engineering (COE) in the AY 2018-19. The purpose of the survey was to monitor change for the
climate of diversity and inclusivity during the third year of the NSF-funded project mentioned
above.1 Students were asked about their experiences and perceptions of inclusivity regarding
several categories of potential ‘otherness’: gender and sexual orientation, race/ethnicity, religion,
socioeconomic status, first-generation college, and disability. The anonymous online survey
asked for self-identification in terms of these categories, their levels of comfort in various
situations (being the only one of their identity or status, speaking about their identity or status,
being with others of their identity or status), being singled out in classrooms because of their
attributes, observations of bias or harassment based on these attributes, their perceptions of self-
efficacy in their classwork and major, and their commitment to a future in engineering.

In this paper we present the results regarding students who identified as disabled in comparison
to students who did not so identify. Throughout the paper we use the terms “students with
disabilities” and “students without disabilities” to identify the two groups of students. In the
tables, for purposes of brevity, we use the terms “disabled” and “non-disabled,” recognizing that
the “non-disabled” often have at least minor disabilities, while the “disabled” often have many

1
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under
IUSE/PFE:RED Grant No. 1623053. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or
recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily
reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
able-bodied features as well. Note that we are limited by self-disclosure, and cannot comment on
the non-disclosed student population, which has been estimated to be as high as 27% [43].

Engineering students with disabilities in the sample

The survey was completed by 214 students in the College of Engineering: 33 (or 15.4%) of these
students identified as having a disability. Thirty-nine percent of disabled engineering students
were first-year, 27% sophomores, 15% juniors, 12% seniors, and 6% were graduate students.
They were distributed across all of the undergraduate programs in engineering (biomedical,
chemical, civil and environmental, electrical and computing, engineering education, and
mechanical). The majority (94%) identified as [non-Hispanic] white [HH2] compared to 92% of
their non-disabled peers. Twenty percent identified as female compared to 26% of their, while
18% identified as having a sexual orientation other than heterosexual, a higher proportion than
just 4% of their peers without disabilities. They rated their parents’/guardians’ income as higher
than non-disabled students (65% $100,000 or higher vs. 44% of those without disabilities) and
had similar concerns about financing the rest of their college education (approximately 5% very
concerned), but a larger percentage of their peers without disabilities were working for pay
during the current academic year (54% vs. 36%) [HH3]. About 15% of students who identified
as disabled also identified as first-generation college students, similar to their peers who did not
identify as disabled.

In terms of their academic background, the students with disabilities reported lower high school
class ranks (40% of students with disabilities graduated in the top 10% of their class, compared
to 55% of the students without disabilities), were just as likely to have participated in
extracurricular STEM activities in high school, and were slightly less likely to have taken AP or
Honors STEM courses in high school.. At this university, they are more involved in extra-
curricular activities, including student/professional engineering societies, engineering service
clubs, the engineering learning community, internships or co-op opportunities, and mentoring
programs. They were as likely or more likely than their peers to participate in non-engineering,
campus-wide extracurricular activities related to their other identities as women, sexual
orientation, or students of color2 .

Disability as a status experienced as “other”

Students were asked how comfortable they felt being with people whose identity was different
than their own. They were not asked this about the disability status, but about race/ethnicity,
gender, religion, sexual orientation, and socio-economic status. Discomfort was interpreted as a
sign of identifying as “other.” The majority of students responded that they were “very
comfortable” in most of the situations. Students with disabilities were less likely to be
comfortable being with people whose religion (56% vs. 67%) and sexual orientation (57% and
69%) is the same as their own and whose religion (48% vs. 61%) and gender (49% vs. 58%) are
different from their own. They were also less comfortable saying what they think about religious
issues (21% vs. 29%), gender issues (27% vs. 31%), sexual orientation issues (21% vs. 29%),
socioeconomic issues (40% vs. 52%), and sexual orientation issues (38% vs. 49%). Students
with disabilities were slightly more comfortable than their peers in speaking with others about
2
their socioeconomic background (27% vs. 39%) and being in situations where they are the only
one of their other identities. This suggests that their “othering” has more to do with these
overlapping identities than their disabled status. (Table 1)

Note that although most of the differences between students with and without disabilities are not
statistically significant (at p<.05), there is a general pattern which indicates clearly the direction
of difference; results are bolded in the following tables when there are particularly large
differences between the students with and without disabilities.

Table 1
Comfort in following situations…
% very comfortable
Disabled Not Total
Survey Item Disabled
Being with people whose:
… race/ethnicity same as my own 58.6 63.6 59.3
… religion is same as my own 55.8 66.7 57.5
…gender same as my own 58.6 63.6 59.3
…sexual orientation same as my own 56.9 69.3 58.9
…SES same as my own 54.7 60.6 55.6
…race/ethnicity different from my own 49.2 54.5 50.0
…religion is different from my own 48.6 60.6 50.5
…gender is different from my own 49.2 57.6 50.5
…sexual orientation is different from my own 47.0 51.5 47.7
…SES different from my own 51.9 54.5 52.3
Speaking with others about:
… my race/ethnicity 47.0 51.5 47.7
… my religion 41.4 39.4 41.1
… my gender 47.0 51.5 47.7
… my sexual orientation 45.9 45.5 45.8
…my SES 39.2 27.3 37.4
Saying what I think about:
…race/ethnicity issues 35.9 33.3 35.5
…religious issues* 40.3 51.5 42.1
…gender issues 37.0 39.4 37.4
…sexual orientation issues 38.1 48.5 39.7
…socioeconomic issues 39.8 45.5 40.7
Being in situations where I am the only one of my:
…race/ethnicity 29.3 21.2 28.0
…religion 28.7 21.2 27.6
…gender 30.9 27.3 30.4
…sexual orientation 29.3 21.2 28.0
…socioeconomic status 30.9 27.3 30.4
* Chi-square significant at p<.05.
Disability interfering with identification with the engineering community
Students with disabilities were less likely to “feel like you are part of an engineering
community” all of the time or usually (65% vs. 71% for students without disabilities). They are
also less likely to feel welcome in the college of engineering (78% vs. 85%), feel wanted in the
college of engineering (47% vs. 57%), and feel valued by the college of engineering (40% vs.
50%). Finally, they were less likely to think that engineering faculty cared about them as a
person (56% vs. 70%) or that the college of engineering cared about them (56% vs. 66%) (Table
2).

Table 2
Student interaction/identification with engineering program
%Usually+All the time (combined)
Survey item Disabled Non-Disabled Total
Team projects are valuable 71.0 79.5 78.1
Feel like you are part of an 64.5 71.2 70.1
engineering community
Like studying with other 61.3 54.6 55.7
students in group
Involved in student study groups 36.6 38.7 38.4
Engineering students at Rowan 77.4 85.9 84.5
help each other succeed in class
Lab work divided equally among 61.3 66.3 65.5
members of lab group

Table 3
Overall education satisfaction
% Strongly Agree + Agree (combined)
Survey Item Disabled Non-Disabled Total
I feel welcome in the college 78.2 84.7 83.6
of engineering
I take pride in the fact that I am 84.4 85.9 85.7
a student in the college of
engineering
Faculty members in the 56.3 70.2 67.9
college of engineering care
about me as a person
There is at least one faculty 78.2 75.3 75.8
member in the college of
engineering that I can count on.
The college of engineering 56.2 65.9 64.3
really care about its students
I feel wanted in the college of 46.9 56.8 55.1
engineering
I feel needed in the college of 31.3 31.7 31.6
education
 I am valued by the college of 40.6 49.7 48.2
engineering
The college of engineering 43.7 57.9 55.6
really values the student.
The college of engineering is 62.5 69.3 68.3
very inclusive
The college of engineering is 43.8 47.5 46.9
very diverse
I would rather remain in the 87.6 82.9 83.6
college of engineering than
Disabled to another college at
this university

Disability and academic issues

The students with disabilities were also more likely to report some difficulty getting help or
support from classroom faculty (28% vs. 47%) and advisors (36% vs. 46%) (Table 4). Just under
three-quarters felt comfortable meeting their professors for academic help always/usually vs.
82% of the students without disabilities. Students with disabilities were less likely to feel their
work was graded fairly by professors (84% vs. 92%) and fewer felt that engineering faculty
inspired them to study engineering (56% vs. 67%) (Table 5). Although students with disabilities
reported similar comfort levels asking questions in class, they reported being more comfortable
with understanding the course material (84% always/usually vs. 77%). Over half felt
overwhelmed by the amount of homework, compared to 38% of the students without disabilities.
Finally, students with disabilities rated their academic skills slightly lower than students without
disabilities (13% vs. 9% responding that they were below or far below average) (Table 6). In
terms of extracurricular activities, students with disabilities had participated in STEM activities
just about as often as their peers without disabilities (Table 7). The same finding was seen
regarding participation in non-STEM activities (Table 8).

Table 4
Please indicate how often you have difficulty getting help or support from…
% never
Disabled Non-Disabled Total
Tutors 53.3 55.4 55.1
Advisors* 35.5 45.5 43.9
Other students 43.8 44.0 43.9
Classroom faculty 28.1 47.3 44.2
*Chi-square significant at p<.05.

Table 5
Overall education satisfaction
% All the time + usually (combined)
Survey item Disabled Non-Disabled Total
Educational experience here 90.7 85.4 86.3
rewarding
 I feel as though I belong in this 78.2 78.1 78.2
engineering environment
I would recommend this school 87.5 86.7 86.8
to siblings or friends
The school provides 81.3 84.7 84.1
environment for free and open
expression of ideas, opinions,
and beliefs
Do your professors treat you 90.7 91.4 91.4
with respect?
Are you able to understand 84.4 77.3 78.4
course material?
Are you comfortable asking 65.6 68.2 67.9
questions in class?
Do your professors think you 12.9 14.7 14.3
have lower ability than you
actually have?
Do your professors grade 83.9 91.5 90.2
your work fairly
Professors take your 77.4 82.9 82.0
suggestions and comments in
class seriously
Comfortable meeting your 71.9 81.7 80.1
professors for academic help
Do you understand what your 84.4 85.3 85.3
professors expect of you?
Do your professors inspire 56.2 66.5 64.8
you to study engineering?
Professors keep office hours 96.7 92.1 92.8
Professors encourage you to 81.2 85.4 84.7
attend their office hours
Do you meet with your 25.1 21.0 21.7
professors for extra help?
Professors move through 18.7 18.9 18.9
course material too quickly
Feel overwhelmed by amount 56.2 38.4 41.3
of homework
Feel satisfied with overall 90.7 85.4 86.3
experience with professors

Table 6
Compared to other students in my classes, I think my academic abilities in my ENG classes
are….
Disabled Non-Disabled Total
Far below average 0.0 1.2 1.0
 Below average 12.5 7.2 8.1
Average 46.9 44.0 44.4
Above average 37.5 43.4 42.4
Far above average 3.1 4.2 4.0

Table 7
Number of STEM activities at this university that students have participated in
Disabled Non-disabled Total
0 21.9 25.3 24.8
1 34.4 34.3 34.3
2 21.9 23.0 22.9
3+ 21.9 17.4 18.1

Table 8
Number of non-STEM activities at this university that students have participated in
Disabled Non-Disabled Total
0 31.3 34.8 34.3
1 21.9 20.8 21.0
2 18.8 19.7 19.5
3 9.4 10.7 10.5
4+ 18.8 14.1 14.7

Disability and self-confidence in engineering

Given their greater difficulty academically and their lower satisfaction and feeling of integration
with the engineering community, it is perhaps not surprising that students with disabilities are
less likely to express confidence in themselves as engineering students or as engineers in the
future. They are less likely to agree or strongly agree that they are well suited for their major and
less confident that they will find a job as an engineer when they graduate (Table 9). Accordingly,
only 56% of students with disabilities reported being very likely to work in an engineering-
related field ten years from now compared to 64% of their peers (Table 10). Surprisingly,
however, students with disabilities have higher aspirations for obtaining master’s and PhD
degrees (48.4% and 22.6%) than their peers (41.5% and 7.9%) (Table 11).

Table 9
% Agree/Strongly Agree
Survey item Disabled Non-Disabled Total
I am well suited for my choice 71.9 79.6 78.4
of college major
I am confident of my overall 78.2 78.5 78.5
ability
I am confident in my ability to 75.1 79.7 78.9
succeed in my college
engineering courses
 I am competent in the skills 75.0 76.7 76.4
required for my major
I am confident someone like 81.3 82.8 82.6
me can succeed in an
engineering career
I expect engineering will be a 93.8 92.1 92.3
rewarding career
I will have no problem 53.2 73.0 69.7
finding a job when I obtain
an engineering degree*
My engineering coursework 75.0 76.8 76.6
will prepare me for a job in
engineering
*Chi-square significant at p<.05.

Table 10
Likelihood of working in engineering-related field 10 years from now
Disabled Non-Disabled Total
Very unlikely 0.0 3.0 2.5
Not likely 3.1 1.8 2.0
Not sure 9.4 12.7 12.1
Possible 31.3 18.7 20.7
Very likely 56.3 63.9 62.6

Table 11
Highest degree in engineering expected to complete
Disabled Non-Disabled Total
I do not intend to 0.0 0.6 0.5
get an engineering
degree
Bachelors 29.0 50.0 46.7
Masters 48.4 41.5 42.6
PhD 22.6 7.9 10.3

Discussion

The students with disabilities in this particular engineering college tend to be primarily
“mainstream” in terms of their sex, race, socio-economic status, and first-generation college
status. Slightly more of them identify as having a sexual orientation other than heterosexual than
among students without disabilities, but this is still a small percentage. They have a higher
percentage identifying as having ADD/ADHD, having an Autism spectrum disorder, speech and
language or visual impairment. One-fifth preferred not to disclose what disability they have, also
not uncommon. It is expected, further, that there is a population of students with disabilities who
do not self-disclose and were thus not identified in the survey of the engineering students.
Their pre-college academic background was somewhat weaker than students without disabilities:
a smaller percentage ranked in the top 10% of their class. In the university, they were somewhat
more likely to feel they were academically below average than their counterparts without
disabilities, but the differences were not large. They were as likely or more likely to participate
in extra-curricular STEM and non-STEM activities compared to their peers without disabilities,
which is known to be related to academic success and persistence for the general engineering
student population.3

While the students with disabilities did not express many feelings of “otherness,” they were not
asked about their disability status in terms of feeling different or “othered.” Other studies have
identified some feelings of difference related to the disability status, and this is something we
will try to identify both through individual interviews that are currently being conducted and in
our fifth-year survey.

They were less likely to feel part of the engineering community or feel welcome in the college of
engineering, although the majority still felt part of the community and college. They did,
however, express that they felt less welcome, valued or wanted in the college of engineering than
the students without disabilities, and were less likely to think the engineering faculty or the
college as a whole cared about them as a person or a student. These findings are in line with the
results in previous studies of students with disabilities in engineering or STEM fields.

They also faced more challenges academically and expressed more difficulty getting help or
support from classroom faculty and advisors. They did, however, seem to be able to get help
from other students similarly to students without disabilities, liked studying with other students
and were as involved in study groups as other students were. They valued team projects and lab
work in groups. Integration with other students is often a weakness for students with disabilities
in engineering, but they did not seem to have much difficulty in this regard. Previous studies
have found that students with disabilities gain self-efficacy in team projects and in situations
where their peers provide feedback; this seems to be a strength in this program.

Fewer saw themselves working as an engineer ten years from the time of the survey than did
their peers without disabilities, but surprisingly, more of the students with disabilities intend to
continue to graduate school.

Thus, in this program there seem to be fewer obstacles to engineering identity than in other
programs that have been studied. Nevertheless, the students with disabilities did appear to have
more challenges academically and in getting help from faculty and advisors, and they were less
likely to feel part of the engineering community or feel welcome in the college of engineering
than other students. Therefore, there is room to explore the sources of these challenges and to
intervene.

One avenue we are exploring is through in-depth interviews with some of the students with
disabilities, to try to understand the sources of their challenges. We will also try to explore the

3
Note that while LGBTQ+ students also participate as much as other students, they still are more
likely to leave engineering than their peers who are not LGBTQ+ [45].
extent to which there is a non-disclosed population with disability who could benefit from some
type of intervention. Making sure that resources are publicized is one way to encourage self-
advocacy and awareness of the types of help that are available, which students with disclosed
disabilities recognize as essential for success.

Another avenue is to identify the attitudes of faculty to students with (disclosed) disabilities and
provide faculty workshops to dispel prejudice or lack of empathy with students with disabilities.
Rule and Stefanich [44] found that some faculty do not understand differences between different
types of disabilities and they sometimes make assumptions that accommodations are being
requested to gain an advantage rather than out of real need. Providing universal design
instructional strategies, a case-by-case approach to accommodations, and regular professional
development on how to deal with disabilities has proven to be helpful. Coordination with the
broader university office may result in helpful workshops and support for faculty who
understand the need to be more accommodating and supportive.

Because there is a relatively small population of students with disabilities in the college of
engineering, it may also be worthwhile to join with other STEM fields for faculty and student
workshops that are particularly related to STEM types of fields. As we learn more about the
engineering students, we will reach out to other majors to try to empower students with
disabilities who have similar challenges as the engineering students.

References

[1] K. Raue and L. Lewis (2011). Students with disabilities at degree-granting postsecondary
institutions (NCES 2011-018). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2011/2011018.pdf

[2] T. Shepard and A. B. Hoxie, I did not anticipate this: Experiences from the early years. ASEE
Annual Conference Proceedings, Indianapolis, IN, 2014.

[3] United States Government Accountability Office, Higher education and disability: Education
needs a coordinated approach to improve its assistance to schools in supporting students
(GAO-10-33). Washington, DC: United States, 2009. Retrieved from
https://www.gao.gov/assets/300/297433.pdf

[4] G. M. Bettencourt, E. Kimball, and R. S. Wells, “Disability in postsecondary STEM

learning environments: What faculty focus groups reveal about definitions and obstacles to
effective support,” Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, vol. 31, no. 4, pp.
387–400, 2018.
[5] C. Dunn, K. S. Rabren, S. L. Taylor, and C. K. Dotson, Assisting students with high-
incidence disabilities to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics. Intervention in School and Clinic, 48,(1), 47-54, 2012.

[6] H. Jeannis, M. Goldberg, K. Seelman, M. Schmeler, and R. A. Cooper, Barriers and

facilitators to students with physical disabilities’ participation in academic laboratory
spaces. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 1–13, 2019.

[7] S. Rao and B. C. Gartin, Attitudes of university faculty toward accommodations to students
with disabilities. Journal for Vocational Special Needs Education, 25(3), 47-54, 2013.

[8] National Science Foundation, Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science
and Engineering: 2017. Retrieved from https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2017/nsf17310/

[9] X. Wei, J. W. Yu, P. Shattuck, M. McCracken, and J. Blackorby, Science, technology,

engineering, and mathematics (STEM) participation among college students with an autism
spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 43(7), 1539–1546,
2013.

[10] E. Ruzich, C. Allison, B. Chakrabarti, P. Smith, H. Musto, H. Ring, and S. Baron-Cohen,

Sex and STEM Occupation Predict Autism-Spectrum Quotient (AQ) Scores in Half a
Million People. PLoS One, 10(10), e0141229, 2015.

[11] S. Baron-Cohen, S. Wheelwright, A. Burtenshaw, E. Hobson, Mathematical talent is linked

to autism. Human Nature 18(2): 125-131, 2007.

[12] I. Zytynski, A waste of talent? Making space for autism in engineering. The Engineer, Jan
23, 2015.

[13] J. Dusek, D. Faas, E. Ferrier, A. Goodner, A.L. Sarang-Sieminski, A. Waranyurat, A.

Wood. Proactive inclusion of neurodiverse learning styles in project-based learning: A call
for action. ASEE Conference Proceedings, Paper ID 22897, 2018.

[14] E.A. Peña, L.D. Stapleton, L.M. Schaffer. Critical perspectives on disability identity. New
Directions for Student Services 154 (Summer): 85-96, 2010.

[15] A. Liasidou, Critical disability studies and socially just change in higher education. British
Journal of Special Education 41(2): 120-134, 2014.

[16] A. Sommo, J. Chaskes. Intersectionality and the disability: Some conceptional and
methodological challenges. Research in Social Science and Disability 7, 47-59, 2013.

[17] C. E. Hawley, E. Cardoso, and B. T. McMahon, Adolescent to adulthood in STEM

education and career development: The experience of students at the intersection of
underrepresented minority status and disability. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 39,
193-204, 2013.
[18] N. W. Moon, T. L. Todd, D. L. Morton, and E. Ivey, E, Accommodating students with
disabilities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM): Findings from
research and practice for middle grades through university education. Atlanta, GA: Center
for Assistive Technology and Environmental Access, College of Architecture, Georgia
Institute of Technology, 2012. Retrieved from
https://advance.cc.lehigh.edu/sites/advance.cc.lehigh.edu/files/accommodating.pdf

[19] X. Wei, E. R. Christiano, J. W. Yu, J. Blackorby, P. Shattuck, and L. A. Newman,

Postsecondary pathways and persistence for STEM versus non-STEM majors: among
college students with an autism spectrum disorder. J Autism Dev Disord, 44(5), 1159-1167,
2014.

[20] W. Erickson, C. Lee, S. von Schrader, Disability Status Report: United States. Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Yang Tan Institute on Employment and Disability, 2016.

[21] S. Sgoutas-Emch, L. Baird, P. Myers, M. Camacho, and S. Lord, We’re not all white men:
Using a cohort/cluster approach to diversity STEM faculty hiring. Thought & Action, 32, 1,
91-107, 2016.

[22] K. Jahan, J. Everett, M. Jalayer, W.T. Riddell, A. Iranmanesh. Developing inclusive

pedagogy for civil engineering courses. Prepared for presentation at ASEE 2020.

[23] P. Shattuck, J. Steinberg, J. Yu, X. Wei, B.P. Cooper, L. Newman, A.M. Roux. Disability
identification and self-efficacy among college students on the autism spectrum. Autism
Research and Treatment, Article ID 924182: 1-7, 2014.

[24] R. J. Jenson, A. N. Petri, K. Duffy, A.D. Day, and K. Z. Truman, Perceptions of self-
efficacy among STEM students with disabilities. Journal of postsecondary education and
disability, 24(4), 269-283, 2011.

[25] H. Denhart, Deconstructing barriers: Perceptions of students labeled with learning

disabilities in higher education. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41,6, 483-497, 2009.

[26] Y. P. Weatherton, R.D. Mayes, C. Villanueva-Perez. Barriers to persistence of engineering

students with disabilities: A review of the literature. ASEE Conference proceedings. Paper
ID 19583, 2017.

[27] A. Lee, A comparison of postsecondary Science, Technology, Engineering, and

Mathematics (STEM) enrollment for students with and without disabilities. Career
Development for Exceptional Individuals, 34, 72–82, 2011.

[28] A. Astin, Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of
College Student Development, 40(5), 518-529, 1984.

[29] T. W. Cadwallader, M. Wagner, and N. Garza, Participation in extracurricular activities. In

M. Wagner, T. Cadwallader, and C. Marder (with R. Cameo, D. Cardoso, N. Garza, P.
Levine, and L. Newman). Life outside the classroom for youth with disabilities. A report
 from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2). Menlo Park, CA: SRI
International, 2013.

[30] A. N. Palmer, W. Elliott III, G. A. Cheatham, Effects of extracurricular activities on

postsecondary completion for students with disabilities. The Journal of Educational
Research, 110(2), 151-158, 2016.

[31] J. T. Cooper, B. A. Pruitt, Creating opportunities for success in college settings for students
with emotional and behavioral disorders. Beyond Behavior, 14(3), 23-26, 2005.

[32] D. Wilson, D. Jones, M. J. Kim, C. Allendoerfer, R. Bates, J. Crawford, T. Floyd-Smith, M.

Plett, and N. Veilleux, The link between cocurricular activities and academic engagement in
engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 103(4), 625-651, 2014.

[33] W. Blanchett, V. Mumford, and F. Beachcum, Urban school failure and disproportionality
in a post-Brown era. Remedial and Special Education, 26,2, 70-81, 2005.

[34] R. J. Skiba, A. S. Simmons, S. Ritter, A. C. Gibb, M. Karega Rausch, J. Cuadrado, and C.

Chung, Achieving equity in special education: History, status, and current challenges.
Council for Exceptional Children, 74, 3, 264-288, 2008. Retrieved from
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/miscellaneous/cb12-134.html

[35] M. A. Gottfried, R. Bozick, E. Rose, R. Moore, Does career and technical education
strengthen the STEM pipeline? Comparing students with and without disabilities. Journal of
Disability Policy Studies, 26, 4, 232-244, 2016.

[36] S. E. Walden, D. A. Trytten, R. L. Shehab and C. E. Foor, Critiquing the “underrepresented

minorities” label. ASEE Conference Proceedings. ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition,
Salt Lake City, UT, 2018.

[38] E. M. Spingola, Literature review on disability participation in the engineering field. ASEE
Conference Proceedings. ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Salt Lake City, UT,
2018.

[39] N. Barga, Students with disabilities in education: Managing a disability. Journal of

Learning Disabilities,29, 4, 413-421, 1996.

[40] T. S. Love, N. Kreiser, E. Camargo, M. Grubbs, E. J. Kim, P. L. Burge, S. M. Culver,

STEM faculty experiences with students with disabilities at a land grant institution. Journal
of Education and Training Studies, 3, 1, 27-38, 2015.

[41] C. Rasoal, H. Danielsoon, and T. Jungert, T, Empathy among students in engineering

programmes. European Journal of Engineering Education, 37, 427–435, 2012.

[42] J. Stobel, J. Hess, R. Pan, and C. A. Wachter Morris, Empathy and care within engineering:
Qualitative perspectives from engineering faculty and practicing engineers. Engineering
Studies, 5, 137–159, 2013.
 [43] S. Grimes, J. Scevak, E. Southgate and R. Buchanan, Non-disclosing students with
disabilities or learning challenges: Characteristics and size of a hidden population. The
Australian Educational Researcher, 44(4), 425–441, 2017.

[44] A.C. Rule and G. P. Stefanich, Using a thinking skills system to guide discussions during a
working conference on students with disabilities pursuing STEM fields. Journal of STEM
education: Innovations and Research, 13 (1), 43-54, 2012.

[45] B. E. Hughes, Coming out in STEM: Factors affecting retention of sexual minority STEM
students. Science Advances 4(3), https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/3/eaao6373 ,
2018.

View publication stats